in a previous life, as a young stud I was into audio equipment. There were basically two camps;

- folks who would spend nights endlessly looking at at "spec sheets" about THD, IMD, bandwidth and RMS and decide what was "best"

- and others who would sit down in a dimly lit room with some tunes (vinyl...!) and listen.

You may know a Swiss company called Weiss? They design and manufacture high end stuff, in particular DACs.

Mr. Weiss is a brilliant engineer and he prides himself of not using at all subjective listening sessions when designing his equipment. His view is that there is no value in doing so, engineering data is all we need since good sound can be perfectly characterized using a set of well known metrics. Predictably, his equipment is repeatedly some of the best sounding at any price.

The value of subjectivity is, simply put, marketing BS used by those unable to design equipment that measures well.

The same does apply to cameras and sensors. Beyond romantic beliefs there is no need to look beyond data, they correlate very well with the technical quality of the images coming out of the sensor. There is no magic.

36/39mp MFDB back owners used to tell us how superior the real DR of their sensor was compared to those of DSLRs (they were mostly using 5DII as base for comparison) and they were using this argument to proof that DxO data was not well correlated with actual photographic value. Now that these backs have become cheaper more people do compare them to the latest DSLR... and what do they report? That the DxO data is in fact perfectly well correlated with what they see in their files.

Now, does that relate to better images? Not the least bit.

It also doesn't mean that the camera with the best DxO figures is the one that is going to satisfy a particular photographer's needs the best. There is a lot more than pure image quality and there are many people who prefer the warm sound of tube amplifiers. They can get along with engineers just fine as long as they don't claim their gear has qualities it doesn't have.

You may know a Swiss company called Weiss? They design and manufacture high end stuff, in particular DACs.

Mr. Weiss is a brilliant engineer and he prides himself of not using at all subjective listening sessions when designing his equipment. His view is that there is no value in doing so, engineering data is all we need since good sound can be perfectly characterized using a set of well known metrics. Predictably, his equipment is repeatedly some of the best sounding at any price.

The value of subjectivity is, simply put, marketing BS used by those unable to design equipment that measures well.

The same does apply to cameras and sensors. Beyond romantic beliefs there is no need to look beyond data, they correlate very well with the technical quality of the images coming out of the sensor. There is no magic.

36/39mp MFDB back owners used to tell us how superior the real DR of their sensor was compared to those of DSLRs (they were mostly using 5DII as base for comparison) and they were using this argument to proof that DxO data was not well correlated with actual photographic value. Now that these backs have become cheaper more people do compare them to the latest DSLR... and what do they report? That the DxO data is in fact perfectly well correlated with what they see in their files.

Now, does that relate to better images? Not the least bit.

It also doesn't mean that the camera with the best DxO figures is the one that is going to satisfy a particular photographer's needs the best. There is a lot more than pure image quality and there are many people who prefer the warm sound of tube amplifiers. They can get along with engineers just fine as long as they don't claim their gear has qualities it doesn't have.

Cheers,Bernard

The trouble is with DXO testing and most testing people do themselves is they try to remove all the variables and to do that you end up shooting in a manor few people that choose 35mm style systems shoot in.Not much point testing on a tripod if you shoot handheld, or using a prime if you shoot mostly with a zoom etc.I was told that DXO rate the 1DsIII as higher DR at low iso than the X. I can assure as a 1DsIII owner for years and a X owner for a few weeks, they are very wide of the mark. The X has bags more DR, shadows go very deep and hold together nicely, not the case with DsIII. Knowing this first hand, I can't take anything DXO says very seriously.As for audio equipment, I just bought a windup gramophone off ebay and a bunch of 78's, I won't replace my Naim with it, but it has it's own set of charms and I've not seen anyone yet that hasn't listened to it with a grin on their face and enjoyed every pop and crack. Boy is it loud.I have zero interest in DXO's findings, if they test it at night with a 24mm TS hanging out of a helicopter I might pay some attention, until then it's food for the lab rats only.

In case anyone cares to see what the 1DX looks like against the top DXO camera for dynamic range (D800E) and against the top DXO camera for high ISO, here is a set of comparison images.

This is a little test that I did a month or two ago with a couple friend's cameras and my 1DX. Canon 1DX (Canon's best) vs the D800E (best DR, best overall) vs the D3S (best high ISO). First up are full frame images then a 100% crop comparison. All tripod mounted, live view focused, identical exposure settings, shot in RAW, processed in LR 4.2, all sharpening and luminance NR set to zero. Color NR set at 30.

First pairing is 1D X and D3S at ISO 25,600. Second pairing is the 1D X and D800E shot with underexposed foreground then with +3 exposure added in LR.

1DX ISO 25k full frame

D3S ISO 25k full frame

1DX ISO 100, 3 stop push full frame

D800E ISO 100, 3 stop push full frame

100 Percent Crops of above

I think for me the takeaway is that the image quality performance of all these cameras has crossed the point where they can all capture excellent images and the differences in the high end DXO sensor scores are less important. Given that, my preference leans towards the camera that is most capable for getting the shot in the heat of the moment, and the 1D X is darn good at that. If you need to get the shot, at the decisive moment, in focus, with accurate WB/color/exposure, the 1DX is pretty much the best game in town.

The trouble is with DXO testing and most testing people do themselves is they try to remove all the variables and to do that you end up shooting in a manor few people that choose 35mm style systems shoot in.

Sorry Kevin, but that doesn't make sense, to me anyway. A robust testing method tries to isolate meaningful parameters from the system that is being tested. Otherwise one is not testing the parameter under investigation, or the test cannot be repeated by others unless all the other additional influentials were exactly the same. Therefore a relevant test can only be done by eliminating as many distractions/pollutions from pure data as possible and meaningful (it wouldn't make sense to eliminate factors that do not influence the outcome to a meaningful degree).

You are correct that a test does not necessarily equal real life shooting scenarios. But that's where the robust testing pays of. When the practical use gives different results than can be expected from the analytical test, then apparently there were new factors that influenced those results. Without the robust testing that would not have been possible to conclude. One can now concentrate on identifying those new factors that had such an influence, and perhaps identify a flaw in shooting technique (e.g. not using proper ETTR, or using such a low shutterspeed that mirror slap becomes an issue).

Quote

Not much point testing on a tripod if you shoot handheld,

Only if you don't want to identify whether your handheld technique is insufficient and you should have used either a faster shutterspeed, or spent some more money on an Image Stabilized version of the lens, or perhaps have used a different way of holding the camera/lens combination, or use less coffee.

Quote

I was told that DXO rate the 1DsIII as higher DR at low iso than the X. I can assure as a 1DsIII owner for years and a X owner for a few weeks, they are very wide of the mark. The X has bags more DR, shadows go very deep and hold together nicely, not the case with DsIII. Knowing this first hand, I can't take anything DXO says very seriously.

That's what you get when you draw (the wrong) conclusions based on hearsay. The DxOmark dynamic range figures (dynamic range tab, screen version) say that the 1DX has better dynamic range than the 1Ds3 at all ISOs above 100, which probably confirms what you are experiencing, unless you underexpose which will show that the 1DX has better SNR at 18% at all ISO's. The SNR 18% metric may be a more relevant parameter for your use anyway.

DXO shows that the Nikon cameras is much better at base iso and DR. 14 stops compared to 11-11,5 stops in CanonTake a shoot with 1dx and d800 and expose after the high light and then compare the results in the shadows , and lift now the shadows so it visual suits you. The Canons is noisy and also shows banding in the lowest levels compare to Nikon.Canon 1DX has 14 times higher read out noise than D800 at base iso.This means that you have a freedom to expose the D800 regarding a contrasty motive, summer day half the street in sun, half the street in shadows.Expose after the high lights= no clipping and then adjust the motive in the other areas with for example curves tools, or select a area and make adjustments in the selected area. Second, you can easily make a HDR picture, Expose after high light= no clipping , develop two copies in your raw converter , one after the high lights and one after shadows/middle tones and put them together, no need of tripod, you make one exposure, you can take moving subjects

This is 1DX and D800 same exposure time F-stop and base iso, the motive are very contrasty from high lights down to shadowsI have then with same procedure lifted the lower levels to show the difference between Sonys/nikons sensor and CanonsThe high read out noise in Canon , pattern noise banding compare to Nikons reproduction of the same lower levels. click on the image

This is another example with D800 and one of mine 5dmk2same exposure time/f-stop ,base isoThe motive exposed after high light to avoid to much clipping in the sky and then the two rawfiles are hanled exactley the same regarding the lower levels/shadows. Large DR and clean lower levels means that I can even more under exposure a contrasty motive, maintain the high lights and adjust the other parts in the motive, as lifting the lower levelsIt not only the DR who are inferior in Canon because of the high read out noise , the Canon cameras has also problem with pattern noise and banding, how much depends on chosen camera model, the 6d has less pattern noise banding then for example 5dmk3 5dmk3

This is another example with D800 and one of mine 5dmk2same exposure time/f-stop ,base isoThe motive exposed after high light to avoid to much clipping in the sky and then the two rawfiles are hanled exactley the same regarding the lower levels/shadows. Large DR and clean lower levels means that I can even more under exposure a contrasty motive, maintain the high lights and adjust the other parts in the motive, as lifting the lower levelsIt not only the DR who are inferior in Canon because of the high read out noise , the Canon cameras has also problem with pattern noise and banding, how much depends on chosen camera model, the 6d has less pattern noise banding then for example 5dmk3 5dmk3

Could you post the raw files, please. Would be interesting to see them in "raw digger".

Best regardsErik

I will try to look them up, they are from last summer.

This is a 3 years old comparison between one of my 5dmk2 and a D7000, and some more cameras. Same here, the motive exposed after the high light , same exposure time/f-stop from the cameras and digging down in the lower levels. PS this is the first time all have been answering me in a polite way when I'm showing above results. Many have been screaming about "it is not a proper exposure etc" by that they mean that a Canon must be exposed richer, longer etc etc than the Nikon. Anyway here is a old comparison regarding pattern noise/banding and signal/noise in the lowest levels from two SLR cameras identical exposed, one APS sensor size and my 5dmk2 https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/DR5dmk2VsD7000